Hawaiian 

Independence 

(NOT ANNEXATION.) O^f Policy. 



A DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ENDANGERED. 



Junius. 



91 





HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE S "ANNEXATION, 



' ANNEXATION " ENDANGERS DOMESTIC SUGAR. 



It is conceded that the " annexation " of the Hawaiian Is- 
lands is not a new "scheme," but it is asserted that it is the 
necessary and fitting sequel to our relations with Hawaii for 
three-quarters of a century. The writer controverts this as 
an erroneous inference. We insist that the independence of 
those Islands, their freedom from all foreign control or dom- 
ination (that of the United States included) has been our 
policy ; that the " scheme " of " annexation " without the con- 
sent of the people and the rightful rulers of Hawaii was not, until 
1893, entertained for a moment by the United States. This 
assertion — which amounts to joining issue with the President, 
is not overcome by the fact that the Hawaiian government 
has sought on at least two occasions to cede the Islands to the 
United States when they were threatened internally, as in 
1854 (See House Ex. Doc. 1, part 1, 53d, 3d, pp. 106, 124, 127), 
or externally as in 1851 (See same Doc, pp. 89, 92, 102), but 
that goes very far from proving the President's position to be 
correct ! In fact the one was but a conditional cession and 
withdrawn or allowed to lapse by Hawaii, p. 132, and in the 
latter case Secretary Webster ordered the deed of cession re- 
turned. (See same Doc, p. 102.) 

These facts are a matter of record, there is no escape from 
them, and they tend to prove the very reverse of the President's 
assumption! In 185 1, when Secretary Webster ordered the 
cession of the Islands to the United States, returned, he said — 

"You will see by my official letter * * * the disposi- 
" tion of the United States is to maintain its independence. Be- 
" yond that you will not proceed. The act of contingent or con- 
11 ditional surrender (of the Islands to the United States) which 
"you mention in your letter as having been placed in your 
" hands, you will please to return to the Hawaiian government. ' ' 
But over and beyond that, there is ample evidence in the 
record to show that the United States always insisted on the 
independence of the Hawaiian Islands, and has not coveted 



OUR POLICY. 





2 



or looked with favor on "annexation," save and except in 
some extremity, to prevent the Islands falling to another 
power, of which there is not now a pretense of the remotest 
danger. Neither the President nor Secretary Sherman lends 
that idea the least recognition. In fact, Secretary Sherman says 
that the present governmentin Hawaii is " firmly established." 
These things being true, where is the necessity of " annexa- 
tion " ? From external danger the United States has long 
guaranteed the independence of the Islands, and from inter- 
nal disorder we may not rightfully intervene. 

As early as December 31, 1842, President Tyler sent to Con- 
gress, correspondence had between certain "agents" of 
Hawaii and our Secretary of State with a message recom- 
mending an appropriation for our Consul at Honolulu. He 
therein assumed that it would be in conformity with the wishes 
of our government and our people that the Hawaiian com- 
munity — "should be respected and all its rights strictly and 
" conscientiously regarded * * * While its nearer approach 
" to this continent and the intercourse which American vessels 
" have with the Islands could not but create dissatisfaction 
" on the part of the United States, any attempt by another 
"power (should such an attempt be threatened or feared) to 
" take possession of the Islands, colonize them and subvert 
" the native government ! * * * it is deemed not unfit 
" to make the declaration that our government seeks no peculiar 
" advantages, no exclusive control over the Hawaiian govern- 
" ment, but is content with its independent existence and 
" anxiously wishes for its security and prosperity. Its for- 
" bearance in this respect under the circumstances of its very 
" large intercourse with the Islands would gratify this govern- 
" ment (should events hereafter arise to require it) in making 
" a decided remonstrance against the adoption of an opposite 
" policy by any other power." — (Cong. Globe, 27th, 3d, p. 103.) 

Who can possibly predicate the present scheme of "annex- 
ation" upon such sentiments as these, wherein the United 
States is made to seek no exclusive control, no peculiar 
advantages, being fully and conscientiously content with the 
independence of those Islands; the people thereof to be free 
and independent of ail foreign control or domination ! And 
what followed this? In 1843 Mr. Webster, as Secretary of 
State, secured from England and France the signatures of 
their representatives to a treaty, agreement or protocol wherein 
they expressly relinquished all claim to the control, seizure, 
or domination of the Sandwich Islands, from which it is to be 
fairly implied that the United States would pursue a like policy. 

Again, and on the 15th of March, 1843, Mr - Webster as 



f 

3 

Secretary of State said — in a communication to Mr. Brown, 
our Commissioner at Honolulu — "We seek no control over 
" the Hawaiian government nor any undue influence what- 
" ever. Our only wish is that the integrity and independence 
" of the Hawaiian territory may be scrupulously maintained * *." 

December, 1842, Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, hari 
said that the President was quite willing to declare as the 
sense of the United States, that — " no power ought either to 
" take possession of the Sandwich Islands as a conquest or 
" for the purpose of colonization and that no power ought to 
" seek any undue control over the existing government * *." 

" No power " embraces the United States as well as otherna- 
tions. Our continuous policy toward the Hawaiian Islands, 
starting with their recognition, has been an insistence on their 
neutrality: their independence or freedom from all foreign 
control. 

In President Taylor's message of December 4, 1849, ne 
luded to the Sandwich Islands, saying — <; We desire that the 
" Islands may maintain their independence, and that other na- 
tions shall concur with us in this sentiment." And very 
properly he added that we could in no event be indifferent to 
their passing under the dominion of any other power. 

Mr. Clayton, our Secretary of State, said to Mr. Rives, our 
Minister to France, July 5, 1850 — "We desire that those 
"Islands (Hawaiian) should maintain their i?idependence. We 
" believe that their existing government is competent to dis- 
" charge the duties of a sovereign state," and he expressed the 
hope that the then existing trouble or dispute between France 
and the Hawaiian Islands would come to speedy and satisfac- 
tory termination, but if not, that France be informed that the 
United States could not allow the Islands — "to pass under the 
"dominion or exclusive control of any other power." iVnd 
he added — what is very pertinent just now — "we (i. e., the 
"United States) do not ourselves covet sovereignty over them. 
" We would be content that they should remain under their 
" present rulers * * *." 

In Mr. Webster's letter to Mr. Rives of June 19, 1851, 
he says — * * * "If you should not already have 
"made the French government acquainted with the interest 
"we feel in the independence of the (Hawaiian) Islands, 
"you will lose no time in taking that course." The Secre- 
tary asserted that the action of the French Admiral in land- 
ing troops and taking possession of the government buildings 
in 1849, was incompatible with any just regard for the Hawai- 
ian government as an independent state. Again in his letter of 
July 14, 1851, to Mr. Severance, our Commissioner at Hono- 



4 



lulu, Mr. Webster still more clearly outlined our policy toward 
the Hawaiian Islands, and it would seem to most effectually 
dispose of the modern assumption of the Hawaiian sugar 
lobby at Washington that the United States has for years fa- 
vored " annexation." In that letter Mr. Webster, after point- 
ing out that theUniied States were the first to acknowledge 
the national existence of the Hawaiian government and to 
treat it as an independent state, says — "In acknowledging 
" the independence of the Islands and of the government estab- 
" lished over them, it (i. e., the United States) was not seeking 
" to promote any peculiar object of its own. What it did, and all 
" that it did was done openly in the face of day, in entire good 
" faith, and known to all nations. * * * This government 
"still desires to see the nationality of the Hawaiian govern- 
"ment maintained, its independent administration of public 
" affairs respected and its prosperity and reputation increased. 
"But while thus indisposed to exercise any sinister influence 
" itself over the councils of Hawaii, or to overawe the proceed- 
" i?igs of its government by the menace or the actual application of 
li superior military force, it expects to see other powerful na- 
" tions act in the same manner " ! 

Not only has the independence of the Islands been our policy; 
not only was the United States to exercise no sinister influence 
over them ; but Mr. Webster especially states that we were 
not to — " overawe the proceedings of its (lawful) government 
" by the menace or the actual application of superior military 
" force." 

And yet that is precisely what the oligarchy and Stevens suc- 
ceeded in using onr flag and forces to accomplish in January, 
1893. 

Mr. Webster proceeded to state — "The United States ex- 
" pects to see other nations act in the same spirit. * * * 
" Our policy is, that while the Government of the United 
" States, itself faithful to its original assurance, scrupulously 
" regards the independence of the Hawaiian Islands, it can 
" never consent to see those Islands taken possession of by 
" either of the great commercial powers of Europe. * * * " 

Can there be any quibble — diplomatic or otherwise, made 
over this language? The independence of the Hawaiian 
Islands \ no interference — save protection by the United 
States to preserve that independence. The very antipodes of 
"annexation." And Mr. Webster further said that he had 
the assurance of the French Minister that France had — " no 
" purpose whatever of taking possession of the Islands. 
* * *>> And this is proven by the fact that when the French 
took possession of the Hawaiian government building, etc., 



August 25, 1849, it carefully abstained from taking down the 
Hawaiian flag. France, even at that early period, did not 
look to an occupation of the Islands. She simply wanted 
reparation for alleged treaty infractions by Hawaii. (House 
Ex. Doc. 1, part 1, 53d, 3d, pp. 13-75.) 

In his message of December 2, 1851, President Fillmore 
alluded to the difference which had, since 1849, been pending 
between the French and the Hawaiian Islands, expressing 
the hope that they would -''be peaceably adjusted, so as to 
" secure the independence of those islands." He pointed out 
that we had been first to acknowledge the independence of 
the Sandwich Islands, influenced by their importance as a 
place of refuge and refreshment for our vessels, and influenced 
by a desire that the islands " should not pass under the con- 
trol of any great maritime State, but should remain in an 
"independent condition and so be accessible and useful to the 
" commerce of all nations.'" 

We are unable to see any " annexation " in that! 

We are aware that in 1854 when Mr. Marcy was Secretary 
of State and when the internal dissensions in the Hawaiian 
Islands threatened a collapse of the government, that the Sec- 
retary of State listened to a proposition of "annexation" 
proceeding from the lawful ruling King and his people. (House 
Ex. Doc. 1, part 1, pp. 121-133. 53d -3d.) 

But all the Secretary of State then said was that it was — " not 
" the policy of the Uni ed States to accelerate " annexation, 
but that if it became "unavoidable" the United States 
would much prefer to acquire the sovereignty of the Islands 
for the United States than see them transferred to any other 
power. "Annexation" at that time was proposed by the 
people of the Islands and the King was disposed to concur. 
Certain Americans were just as selfishly impatient then — 
forty- three years ago, as they are now! The idea expressed 
in the Gregg-Marcy treaty was, that the Islands be admitted 
as a State, and that $300,000 a year be paid by the United 
States to be divided between the King, chiefs and his suc- 
cessors to the throne. Objection was then made to Hawaii 
coming in as a State and also to the amount of the annuity ; 
$100,000 was thought sufficient. An important feature run- 
ning through all the Secretary's dispatches was that in any 
treaty of "annexation" the people should be consulted, as 
well as the rulers ! In his dispatch of January 31, 1855, the 
Secretary said — 

"If the Hawaiian government and people become con- 
" vinced of the necessity of such a change (i. e., annexation) 
"it is probable that they will, if left to their own choice, look 



6 



" to the United States as the country to which they would 
" wish to be annexed." 

That was a very different matter than taking a cession 
from an oligarchy that acquired possession by deception and 
the use of our flag and forces. 

In his letters to Mr. Comly in 1881, Mr. Blaine just as 
firmly states our pol'cy toward the Hawaiian Islands, as had 
his predecessors in office and our Presidents. For instance, 
writing November 19, 1881, he says — "The government of 
" the United States has, with unvarying consistency mani- 
" fested respect for the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom 
" and an earnest desire for the welfare of its people. * * * 
" The government of the United States has always avowed 
•'and now repeats, that under no circumstances, will it 
"permit the transfer of the territory or sovereignty of these 
"Islands to any of the great European powers." 

That was but a repetition of what had been stated many 
times over by our government. The independence of the 
Islands : no transfer of them to a foreign power. "Annexa- 
tion " as now tendered to the United States would be incon- 
sistent with all our professions. The independence of the 
Islands was and is our strongest argument to meet foreign 
domination and of course that forbids "annexation." 

December 1, 1881, Mr. Blaine again says to Mr. Comly — 

" The material possession of Hawaii is not desired by the United 
" States any more than was that of Cuba, but under no cir- 
" cumstances can the United States permit any change in the 
" territorial control of either which would cut it adrift from 
" the American system, etc." 

The independence of Hawaii and of Cuba are very different 
from the jingo " annexation " scheme. And in the same let- 
ter Mr. Blaine says — 

" The United States firmly believes that the position of the 
" Hawaiian Islands, as the key to the domination of the 
"American Pacific, demands their benevolent neutrality, to 
"which end the United States will earnestly co-operate with 
"the native government." 

And then he said — and this is about all the jingoes have to 
rely upon; that — " if through any cause the maintenance of 
" such a position of benevolent neutrality, should be found by 
"Hawaii to be impracticable, this government would then 
"unhesitatingly meet the altered situation by seeking an 
" avowedly American solution for the grave issues presented." 

It has been the serious effort of the Hawaiian " Sugar 
Trust " and its diplomatic and other agents to so manipulate 
matters — "bring things to a smash" (See House Ex. Doc. 1, 



7 



part i, p. 737) as to seem to bring their tottering oligarchy 
within the range of this undefined policy of Mr. Blaine. They 
have tried to get into a row with Japan in order to make 
benevolent neutrality " impracticable " and " annexation " 
thereby necessary and "unavoidable," but they have failed 
in this. There has never been — for a moment, any serious 
pretense that the independence or "neutrality" of the 
Hawaiian Islands was in peril or in any way menaced ! The 
only thing menaced is the oligarchy! The despotism of a 
few who — under the cloak of "peaceable" citizens, con- 
spired to obtain the use of our flag and our troops to overawe 
a lawful ruler and induce her to surrender — as she supposed, 
to the United States, with the promise that we would arbi- 
trate the matter ! If the independence of the Islands has 
come to be "impracticable," it must have been rendered so 
by the antics of the oligarchy to create the conditions, which 
only proves how unworthy it is of confidence, support and 
trust, and what a mistake it was to overthrow the lawful 
ruler in 1893. 

In 1887, Secretary Bayard said to our Minister Merrill: 
"As is well known, no intent is cherished nor policy enter- 
" tained by the United States which is otherwise than friendly 
" to the autonomical control and independence of Hawaii." 

Beyond all question, our insistence on the independence of 
the Hawaiian group has been continuous, honest and honor- 
able. It has not embraced the art of the conspirator, nor 
the "diplomacy" of the Hawaiian "Sugar Trust." That 
policy does not absolve the United States from pursuing the 
same course which we have forced upon foreign nations. We 
did not demand the independence of those Islands in order to 
lake them ourselves ! Nor should we "annex" them simply 
because a few selfish sugar planters may have created conditions 
which they may not be able to maintain or control and which 
are over and beyond the neutrality and the independence of 
the Islands. 

This " annexation " boil on the body politic of the Uaited 
States appears to break out at intervals. It seems to lie dor- 
mant at times as if germinating and gathering pus. Thirty-one 
years ago there was a violent " annexation " eruption in the 
House of Representatives, when the " Foreign Relations " 
Committee reported a bill to the effect, that whenever Great 
Britain and the several provinces composing Canada should 
accept "annexation" the President should declare by 
proclamation that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Lower and 
Upper Canada, Selkirk, Saskatchewan and Columbia, should 
be admitted into the United States as States or Territories ! 



8 

That was " annexation " by the wholesale, and yet there was 
some little sense in it compared with this Hawaiian " scheme " 
because Canada is valuable coterminous territory. The only 
wonder, however, is that the jingoes didn't suggest the " an- 
nexation " of the whole of Europe and part of Asia ! England 
has already annexed Boston and the suburbs, nearly all of 
Newport and Bar Harbor, the best part of Washington, all 
of Fifth Avenue and outlying districts on Long Island and 
well up the Hudson. Over this " annexed " territory British 
sentiment in certain circles is supreme. The British have also 
annexed scores and hundreds of the loveliest American 
heiresses to replenish depleted bank accounts. In fact, " an- 
nexation" is a British idea ! England has annexed too much ! 
Her West India Islands are to-day sending up a " reciprocity " 
appeal to us. Their condition is deplorable. 

A leading Western journal was correct when it said that — 
" the President will hardly be able to show that during all 
"this time eventual annexation has been regarded as a 
"necessary outcome of our relations. The fact is that the 
" development of annexation sentiment to any extent is of 
"comparatively recent date. It was started and cultivated in 
" Hawaii by the men who overthrew the monarchy and estab- 
" lished themselves in power — not by the popular choice, but by 
" forcible usurpation — and it was not until this change that 
" there was any serious thought or talk in the United States of 
" annexing the Hawaiian Islands." 

No political party, no Senator, nor Representative has a 
right to indirectly invite taxation upon our own people by 
forever relinquishing needed revenue — in the pursuit of a new 
colonial " Annexation " policy, nor give away every year 
$8,000,000 of the revenues of the government ! In view of 
the many objections which lie to this " annexation " scheme, 
the mere unsupported statement that annexation is the sequel 
or natural consequence of our past policy, does not meet the 
case where there is no pretense that the independence of the 
Islands cannot be maintained without annexation. With the 
internal iactional troubles in Hawaii we have no concern and 
may not interfere ! We owe this Hawaiian sugar oligarchy 
neither sympathy nor support. It came into power through 
duplicity, deception and fraud, under the dishonorable use 
made of our flag, and it is maintained by disfranchising the 
people ! If it can maintain itself, well and good ; if it can- 
not, let the oligarchy surrender the power it usurped to the 
people of Hawaii, but to ask the United States to " annex " the 
Islands with a debt of over 14,000,000, with thousands of 
"contract" laborers and hundreds of lepers and give up 




9 



annually -#8, ooo,ooo or more of needed revenue and burden 
ourselves forever after to support sugar planters 2,100 miles 
away, is little too much of a tax on the patience and liberality 
of the American people ! It may be that the country can be 
made to shoulder and carry one more " Trust," and a foreign 
one at that, but there are many who doubt it ! There is a 
powerful " annexation " leverage in the $66,000,000 already 
wrung from our taxpayers. There is a great deal more in the 
anticipated benefits which would arise under " annexation " accom- 
plished ! 

We have, and it has been our policy to have, a coterminous, 
compact territory. There is not only strength in it but 
economy. We have upward of 75,000,000 population in 45 
States with a million of voters in Ohio, and more in other 
States — nations in themselves — all the territory and all the 
people with our varied and troublesome interests that it is 
prudent and safe to attempt to control under a republican 
form of government that is as yet little more than an experi- 
ment. Our commerce and our coasts have been in greater 
danger than they ever will be again, unless we sacrifice a 
timely expenditure of money for coast defense and dry docks. 
Why aggravate present conditions — that need money at home, 
by annexing Islands over 2,000 miles away that will then need 
defense and thus increase the burdens of taxation in order to 
exploit a new political policy to meet the cupidity and 
avarice of selfish foreign and domestic interests and the 
demands of ambition, or perhaps pay a political obligation ! 

There remains one point, not touched upon. It is made by 
Senator Morgan whose relatives in Honolulu are doubtless 
ardent " annexationists." The Senator — writing from Hon- 
olulu under date of October 1, is reported as saying that — "The 
" rapid settlement of these islands by some foreign nation is 
" a necessary result of the conditions, in this period of 
" activity in the movements of population, and, left to its 
i( unaided strength, the control of that immigration is beyond 
" the power of any local government of Hawaii, whatever 
" may be its form. Hawaii is thus forced by an overpowering 
" necessity to seek a foreign alliance with some monarchy, 
" 01 annexation to the United States, in order to control this 
"question of immigration." 

Having existed under a constitutional monarchy for nearly 
half a century, we are unable to discover who but the con- 
spirators of 1893 have made a foreign alliance necessary ! 
American immigration will continue to balance that of the 
English and German. Then there is nothing left but 
" contract " labor immigration that is invited into the Islands 



io 



by the cupidity of the Hawaiian " Sugar Trust." Neither the 
Japanese, the Chinese nor the Portuguese come in — to any ex- 
tent, save through legislative appropriations. They have nearly 
all come that way. If thrre is any evil in that, the remedy 
is in the hands of those who extend the invitation and even make 
treaties to that end. The Senator frankly concedes this. He 
says — "This policy of encouraging Asiatic immigration was 
" instituted in the reign of Kalakaua, through the importunity 
" of capitalists and enterprising men, who discovered that 
" great wealth could be speedily acquired by the cultivation 
" of sugar and rice." 

•'•'ANNEXATION" THREATENS OUR BEET-SUGAR 
INDUSTRY. 

If the scheme of annexing the Hawaiian Islands succeeds, 
it will seriously threaten our domestic beet-sugar industry, 
which has finally secured a promising start in the United 
States. The Hawaiian "Sugar Trust" composed of individ- 
uals and corporations have many advantages over our indus- 
try ; they got government lands and lands from the natives 
in Hawaii for a song and Crown lands equally cheap on long 
(30-year) leases. 2d: They have '• contract" and coolie 
labor, and the fertility of their soil and the climate for sugar 
production enables them to get two. three and even five 
times as much sugar per acre as can be produced in the 
United States. These advantages are too great for our 
farmers and manufacturers to overcome on anywhere ?iear equal 
terms. In spite of this well-known fact we find the last Trans- 
Mississippi Congress, held at Denver in 1897, passing a resolu- 
tion in favor of annexation ! How our farmers were brought to 
such a resolution is explained by the following clipping from a 
leading Western paper : 

"Mr. Lorrin Thurston, envoy extraordinary of Hawaiian 
" Island land speculators and sugar planters, turned up in the 
•• Trans-Mississippi Congress at Salt Lake to advocate annexa- 
"iion." 

Prof. Maxwell, as director of the experiment station of the 
Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, stated the average yield 
of sugar per acre in the Hawaiian Islands in 1894-' 5 to be 
6,472 pounds or about 3^ tons. This is more than double 
the yield in the United States, and there is no doubt that 
under more favorable and less slovenly methods than those 
pursued in the Hawaiian Islands, the average yield there 
would reach at least 5 tons per acre. We base this upon a 
statement made by the Hawaiian Commercial Journal of April 
21, 1896, which gave the yield of two large fields of the Ewa 



1 1 

plantation at 9 tons to the acre. And in the Hawaiian 
Planters' Monthly of December, 1894, it was stated that the 
estimate of yield of the Dillingham plantation, was 6 tons per 
acre. Mr. Z. K. Pangborn, of New Jersey, who was in Hawaii 
during the entire summer of 1896, says in the New York Sun 
of January 3, 1897, of Hawaiian sugar lands : 

"The lands where sugar cane can be raised are the most 
" productive of any in the world, an acre of good sugar land 
"in Hawaii yielding twice, or more than twice, as much per 
" acre as any lands in Louisiana or Cuba." 

Very little doubt therefore can be entertained as to the 
advantage which Hawaiian sugar-planters possess over our 
beet and cane sugar producers. 

"Annexation " concerns our domestic beet sugar industry 
in another way. In fact our industry to-day is in danger — ■ 
because of the " reciprocity " treaty with Hawaii, and it is 
likewise threatened with more "reciprocity" with the West 
India Islands. England refuses to assist her sugar colonies 
with a bounty and wants the United States to support them. 
Our domestic sugar industry is also endangered because of 
the power and probable disposition of the New York " Sugar 
Trust," — and foreigners acting in competition, to crush the life 
out of our beet-raisers and sugar-producers. The New York 
"Trust" forces its (foreign) product from the Eastern sea- 
board well up to and perhaps even beyond the Missouri River, 
where it meets the 200,000-ton Hawaiian product coming in from 
San Francisco/ Thus our domestic product is in a position 
to be ground to powder between the upper and nether mill- 
stones of two gigantic "Trusts"! As sugar in Hawaii is 
produced by "cheap labor" and the output per acre double 
our own, and the freight rates very low from Honolulu to 
Missouri River points, and the total product enormous and 
increasing, it enters the only (local) markets on which the 
producers of domestic sugar can safely rely. It can be 
laid down cheaper than domestic sugar can be produced at a 
fair profit. Already arrangements appear to be on foot 
whereby a larger proportion of the Hawaiian product is to 
come in at San Francisco than heretofore. We note, in this 
connection, a dispatch to the Washington Post — 

"TO REFINE HAWAIIAN SUGAR — 



SENATOR PERKINS' NEW SCHEME HAS SOMETHING IN 
VIEW BESIDES BEETS. 

"San Francisco, Cal., Aug. 24 — Beet sugar will not be the 
" only product of the Starr Mill at Crockett, when it starts up 
"about January 1, next. The machinery will permit of the 



12 



" refining of cane sugar as well, and the prospects are that it 
" will take considerable of the Hawaiian crop." 
Another dispatch says — 

" It is stated that the new California beet-sugar and refin- 
" ing company is to erect a factory at Crockett, Contra 
" Costa County, CaL, and that it will also convert into a 
" sugar factory the Union stock yards plant at Rodeo, CaL, 
" which originally cost one million dollars, but which has 
" been standing idle for five years. The Crockett plant is to 
" be adapted to refining Hawaiian cane sugar as well as the 
" manufacture of beet sugar. The company hopes to handle 
" considerable Hawaiian sugar, when the contract between the 
" Island planters and the sugar trust expires in December." 

Another San Francisco dispatch, Nov. u, says — 

" The contract of the Hawaiian planters with the Western 
" Sugar Refinery will expire December 31, 1897. It will con- 
tinue that portion of the crop, say from 40,000 to 50,000 
" tons, which Claus Spreckels can control. Of the remainder 
"of 225,000 tons, 150,000 tons will be placed on the market 
"by the California Beet Sugar and Refining Company." 

These interests in San Francisco may favor " annexation," 
but they are selfish and local. Notwithstanding our efforts to 
advance and develop the beet-sugar industry at home, the 
above dispatches would seem to indicate that certain Senators 
on the Pacific Slope — to which section the home industry is 
very important, may be ready to lend the Hawaiian " Trust " 
aid and comfort. How far this "business" venture may 
affect votes, remains to be seen. 

We wish to call attention to the fact that when the Hawaiian 
treaty of 1875 was originally entered into, something was said 
about its effect on our American sugar producers, but this was 
put aside by a statement that the Hawaiian sugar tonnage 
was too infinitesimal to warrant any fears. But it has devel- 
oped from 30,000,000 of pounds in 1887 to over 400,000,000 
of pounds in T896. 

In the discussion in the Senate over that "free" sugar 
treaty the friends of the Hawaiian "Trust" ignored the 
effect which the " free " sugar treaty was bound to have on 
our home sugar industry, but it was conceded by Senators 
who favored the job that if it could be shown that it would 
operate injuriously, the treaty should not be ratified. Senator 
Mitchell of Oregon frankly admitted, that if it were true that 
our domestic sugar industry was to be stricken down by the 
treaty, or paralyzed, then it would have a right to be heard. 
It would have a right, he said — " to protest against any action 
"on the part of this government, the effect of which would 



r 3 



(< be to strike down o?' seriously impair any legitimate industry 
" whether it be the production of sugar or any other ; and I 
" take it that the Senate of the United States would be slow 
" to give its sanction to any measure if it were apparent that 
" such would be the effect." 

Time has made out the case against these Hawaiian sugar 
planters and our domestic industry calls for judgment I Having 
gotten out of our taxpayers $66,000,000 by remission of duty 
on rice and sugar since 1875, we are asked to extend 
$8,000,000 per annum more of benefit through " annexation." 
Will this blood-sucking Hawaiian " Sugar Trust " never let 
go of the anatomy of our taxpayers? Must we sit idly by and 
see this " annexation " scheme go through in order that a new 
foreign policy may be developed 7 

As to the direct effect which Hawaiian " annexation " 
would have on our domestic beet-sugar industry, the Omaha 
Bee is entirely correct. It says — 

" At a moderate rate of freight Hawaiian sugar will easily 
" reach our markets as far east as the Missouri River, covering 
" the very tract of territory in this country which is best 
" adapted for the production of beet sugar and thus taking away 
" from that section the possibility of marketing its product. 
" In view of this, few capitalists would risk their money in 
" the domestic industry. The development of the beet-sugar 
" industry promises to give the farmers of the Western States 
" invaluable aid. The scheme for Hawaiian annexation is 
" directly opposed to their interests. Last year Hawaii 
" produced 200,000 tons of sugar, practically all of which 
" found a sale in the United States. With this production 
" trebled under annexation she would send us 600,000 tons 
" per year, raised by cheap coolie labor. The beet-sugar 
" industry of the West would have small chance of growth in 
" face of this tremendous competition." 

Another leading newspaper says — " Under annexation, 
" Hawaiian sugar will pay no duty whatever, and have the 
" protection of our Tariff in their favor to the extent of about 
" 2c. per lb., there is left a margin of fully ic. per lb. discrim- 
" ination in favor of the Hawaiian sugars, as against an equal 
" production of beet sugars in the Western sections of our 
" country. Therefore, the beet-sugar industry of California 
" and of all States west of the Missouri River would be 
" directly injured by the annexation of these Islands to the 
u extent of ic. per lb. or more upon the strictly domestic 
" industry. It is easy to see what a terrible blow this will 
" give to the beet-sugar industry in the Western sections of 
il our country and with what caution capitalists will be in- 
" duced to look upon the development of this great industry." 



i 4 



The farmers of Minnesota, in the Dakotas. of Wisconsin, 
Nebraska, Utah, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Texas, New York, 
Oregon, Washington, California and of many States in the 
Middle West, are deeply interested in the progress of domestic 
sugar production, and Senators from those States should be 
instructed if necessary by their legislatures to oppose this 
Hawaiian "job" It won't do for Senators to say — " we would 
"vote to abrogate the treaty," while they favor " annexation." 
Annexation means " free sugar" from Hawaii for all time and 
is even worse than the existing treaty / 

If it be said that Congress will come to the relief of our 
domestic beet sugar industry by giving it a small bounty to 
encourage 'he investment of additional capital to develop it 
and to prevent its being throttled by " free " Hawaiian sugar, 
the answer is that all that is in the air, besides the bounty 
would not only need to be liberal to counteract the future 
effect of free Hawaiian sugar, but such a bounty would not be 
stable ; it would go off as soon as the Democrats came into 
power, while "annexation" would be a fixed fact which Con- 
gress could not undo ! So that in whatever light the matter is 
viewed, our domestic beet-sugar industry is threatened by 
"annexation," beset as it already is by demands for "reci- 
procity " which, if acceded to, will leave domestic producers 
with little more than the (1.2) rate intended to be granted by 
the Wilson bill. In this connection we wish to call attention 
to the fact that notwithstanding the increase of duty on sugar 
by the Dingley bill, the price of standard granulated in New 
York is only y 2 c. higher than it was one year ago and only 
reC. higher in New Orleans, and prices of labor and of factory 
materials have risen considerably. 

Hawaiian " annexation " flies full in the face of the resolu- 
tion adopted at the last National Republican Convention, on 
this subject — 

Resolved, " We condemn the present (Dem.) Administration 
" for not keeping faith with the sugar producers of this coun- 
" try. The Republican party favors such protection as will 
" lead to the production on American soil of all of the sugar 
" which the American people use, and for which they pay 
"other countries more than $100,000,000 annually." 

"Annexation" is necessarily hostile to that resolve, and 
the two cannot be reconciled. The American people will surely 
come to wonder at these two opposite professions and some 
very strong reasons — outside of those glittering generalities so 
frequently indulged in and called "political and commercial 
considerations," will need to be advanced to convince the 
American people that something is not " rotten in Denmark." 



5 



In fact this Hawaiian matter is so odious that it reminds 
one of John Randolph's famous remark — 

"It shines and stinks and stinks and shines, 
Like a rotten mackerel by moonlight." 

Let us protect our own farmers in the field and our own labor 
and our own taxpayers first. It will be time enough after that, 
to extend our protective hand over 2,100 miles of sea to aid 
another " Sugar Trust." Suppose there is American capital 
in Hawaii. It had better be at home developing our own sugar 
industry ! It becomes foreign capital when it deserts our 
shores and escapes our taxation for 21 years. Is American 
capital invested abroad in foreign competitive industrial pur- 
suits to receive favor at the expense of needed revenue and of 
home capital ? Is that to be the policy of this Government? 



